How can the majority of people in a country be fully employed if ?

[CodenamePliskin]

Ive reposted my comment here to open up debate on the questions here :

How can the majority of people in a country be fully employed if every company is run for profit and or includes public sector, charities, not-for profit organisations ?

There is only so much that companies can achieve and still make profits. So, what do we do with the rest of the people when it's not profitable?

How can we achieve almost full employment in any given country when there are only so many people needed?

Furthermore, if companies don't have the resources to pay proper wages, how can society improve within a capitalist system?

This is simply not true

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/publicandprivatesectorearnings/2014-03-10

I think it would be a very good thing if families could have a good life without requiring two full-time incomes. And if those who are ill or disabled aren’t being pressured in to work. Full employment isn’t a great target, imo.

Unfunded pensions just mean there isn’t a ringfenced pot of money like a private sector pension has to have, it’s just an entirely different setup. The contribution to the pension is still in effect towards your future pension, which will come out of public funds at the time. You can’t really compare the two. This was something that came up in a general election a while back when one party tried to claim the other had spent money from the pot that didn’t actually exist.

The number of companies and the number of employees in companies are not finite, they increase to match the potential for profit and the availability of suitable labour, management, etc.

There is plenty that needs doing, we don't have people to harvest hand picked crops, road verges are covered with rubbish, many woodlands don't get managed any more, roads full of pot holes, houses in disrepair, infrastructure like school and hospital maintenance not keeping up, more housing stock needed. not enough care workers and nursery workers or nurses and doctors or brick layers, carpenters and plasterers. There could be plenty of jobs to go around. The government should pick up the slack paying for a some of this, it would mean raising more tax, but more people in work means more tax money.

Ah, so you are making a generalisation based on only the low end of public sector employees. Fortunately the full job to job comparison of like with like between public and private has shown repeatedly that on average, as in -in the majority of cases, public sector employees are paid less than private sector employees.

Your employer contribution in the public sector isn’t to your pension. Public sector occupational pensions are unfunded. The contribution goes to paying the current retirees who were on vastly more generous pensions. Your statement saying how much your public pension is worth is based on your pensionable earnings and years of service, it isn’t linked to the employer contributions.

Here is easy read on the fact that the contributions you pay and your employer pay do not go into a pension pot of savings to later pay your pension.
https://www.unbiased.co.uk/discover/pensions-retirement/starting-a-pension/public-sector-pensions

Yes it is true NOW and has been since 2017.
Your ONS report is from 2014 based on 2013 data and is an decade out of date. It even says in the link “this is not the latest release”

Read the latest release from 2019- it has gotten worse since then.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/publicandprivatesectorearnings/2019

See first table, 65% of public sector employees are upper or upper middle skill level occupations.

See second table, public sector employees in the upper or upper middle skill level occupations earn between 2.5% to 15% less than their private sector counterparts even after accounting for the renumeration of their defined benefit pension.

A large part of this is because public sector pensions were heavily cut in 2015, meaning the total package of salary, pension and other forms of renumeration is for most (65%) public sector employees now less than what they can get in the private sector.

Exactly, the employer contribution % between public and private employers cannot be directly compared because the public employer contribution % isn’t linked to or saved towards the pension you will get but the private employer contribution % is.

🙄 you’re mixing up how it’s funded with what you get back out, you can still compare because what you end up with is far superior.

The economy isn't a fixed size. The economy grows because oeople come up with new ideas for things to make or services to provide, or they come up with better ways to provide existing goods and services. As the economy grows more jobs are created.

There is no hard limit on the total amount of profit and the total amount of jobs that the economy can provide.

No, I’m not the one mixing up the two. It was other posters thinking you can directly compare employer contributions in private to public. You can’t.

Yes can compare the outcome, but not the input as the second is not dependent on the first.

According to the ONS, what the majority of civil service (65%) end up with is inferior not superior when total renumeration is compared for the same occupation between public and private sectors.